Last month, The Tribune‘s editorial board asked: “Nipomo is a haven for wealthy retirees. How about more housing for local workers?”
In the email The Tribune sent out linking to the editorial, the question was distilled down to: “What matters more, oak trees or affordable homes?”
The occasion was the proposed Dana Reserve, a mega-development planned for Nipomo. The Tribune, after calling the project “a perfect match” for “a county starved for housing,” went on to acknowledge (one of) the project’s drawbacks: “More than 3,000 mature oak trees would be cut down.” Hence the binary choice: oak trees or affordable housing?
The terms “oak trees” and “affordable housing” need to be unpacked. As the draft environmental impact report (EIR) states, the coastal oak woodland on the project site “provides important native habitat for plants and wildlife” and “contributes significantly to … the region’s overall biological diversity.” The project would destroy not just thousands of oaks, but an entire ecosystem.
And oaks are among the most efficient carbon absorbing trees. Six mature oaks (but not the saplings the developer proposes to replace them with) can sequester 1 ton of CO2 per year. Per the California Oak Foundation, “If we assume that our current oak woodlands and forests average 100 years of age, then we can expect to sequester almost 3 million tons of additional carbon a year by protecting and conserving these trees throughout the 21st century.” Hence, by removing 3,749 oaks, the project as proposed would contribute significantly to both global warming and the loss of habitat.
The project also promises to bring a significant increase in air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, unplanned population growth, and an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Finally, this is how the draft EIR describes the proposed project’s affordable housing benefit: “An overarching goal and vision of the project is to provide affordable-by-design housing geared towards first-time homebuyers and starter homes.” This will be achieved by dedicating one of the development’s 10 neighborhoods—the one on the smallest amount of acreage, occupying 1.4 percent of the site—to affordable housing.
“Would it be preferable if more oak trees could be preserved?” The Tribune asked. “Of course, and if there is a way to do that while staying true to the goal of the project—which is to provide a range of housing types at prices considerably less than the $1 million that is fast becoming the benchmark here—of course that should be pursued.”
The way to do that is known as the Burton Mesa chaparral avoidance alternative, which the project’s alternatives analysis dismisses: “While the Burton Mesa chaparral avoidance alternative would substantially avoid and reduce impacts to biological resources; reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions, VMT, and unplanned population growth; and improve project consistency with applicable plans and policies, this alternative would not reduce significant impacts related to aesthetic resources.”
The project analysis appears to equate “aesthetic impact” with density and multi-family residential units. It also claims that this alternative does not “meet the basic project objective of providing a range of housing types, including affordable housing.” But, in fact, this alternative provides that range of housing types in a different ratio: “Single-family units would be reduced from 831 to 111 and multi-family units would be increased from 458 units to 704.”
The claim that this alternative would not provide affordable housing is contradicted by the statement that the Burton Mesa alternative “would also have the potential to facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)”—the ultimate “affordable-by-design” housing.
Because of the project’s significant environmental impacts, a permit would require a statement of overriding considerations by the county.
In other words, a more accurate Tribune headline would have been: “What matters more, 4,000 oak trees, sensitive species, air quality, and global warming or 75 units of affordable housing?”
The inclusion of a small percentage of affordable housing in the proposed project does not override its impacts to the environment and the economy. (Agriculture also fares poorly in the environmental analysis.) As proposed, the Dana Reserve illustrates the reason why affordable housing should be an outcome of public policy, not left up to developers, inserted into project proposals for the purpose of persuading elected officials to ignore their project’s significant impacts.
As the project alternative would substantially avoid the destruction of coastal oak woodland habitat, reduce air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and unplanned population growth, the county should require the Burton Mesa chaparral avoidance alternative. Δ
Andrew Christie is the director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Reach him through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 18-28, 2022.
Exactly some of the concerns expressed by many people opposing the project! Please sign our petition against the project! https://chng.it/qKzFP4M2
Nipomo doesn’t have the infrastructure to support such a large development. All the oak trees in our county are protected by an oak tree ordinance. Our elected county officials should not allow a violation of existing ordinances.
Due to concerns about global warming it seems in conflict to remove that number of oak trees. We are also questioning the fact of ‘where is all this water suppose to be coming from’ given the fact that we are already in 22 year drought & that reservoirs are way below normal? How has this project even gotten to this point with so many negatives?
Why are our elected representatives not represent their constituents.
“Affordable by design” That’s nearly as big a lie as Donald Trump’s big lie.
There is no such thing as affordable housing with the cost of materials, labor, opting into county services, connecting to the gird and water supply – which is non existant at present – etc. So why even set aside a few homes to be smaller but still beyond the income of miminum wage workers?
It’s a joke and not worth giving up the trees.
It would be better to ask the individuals seeking to invest money in building homes to invest in desalination instead.
Then, perhaps,we could serve existing homes and, if needed by local workers, homes could be built with plenty of available water. Perhaps even plenty of power if Diablo stays open an is modernized.
Time to let go of old ideas, embrace new ones and move forward.
This project is designed to bring more retirees to our county. There are few jobs here to warrant buidlinn homes low or middle income workers cannot afford. What is the point other than investors realized a return on their investment? Better to encourage investment in needed existing services like water and power.
From this letter and the comments, it becomes clear why the dream of “affordable housing” shall always be an unattainable fantasy.
Isn’t there another plot of land in the county that doesn’t have 3,000 oak trees on it?